Sentimentalism vs Sadhu's knife

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jul 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

> One is not allowed to have any doubt. The way of "clearing"

> the doubts, as given here from you, would be to first *accept*

> Narayana Maharaja as the "unimpeachable sadhu", go to him and

> inquire and listen to him submissively. In other words, first

> we all got to accept Narayana Maharaja as the guru. Then we "may"

> go "clearing" eventual doubts.

 

Just give him a fair hearing, that's all.

 

> Next. One is not asking for Narayana Maharaja. One is being

> forced on him.

 

He is something like a "tar baby," isn't he? You try to get rid of him and you

get stuck even more. Try licking the "tar," though: it's actually honey. But I

guess if you are too jaundiced and don't have faith that eating sugar is the

only cure for jaundice, you are in something of a predicament.

 

> We are in the situation to defend own decision why not to go to NM

> and accept his siksa/diksa. Thus one is automatically nailed on the > wall

as the criticizer and offender of an unimpeachable sadhu. A > "sadhu_ninda"

stamp onto your forehead! Isn't this funny? Somebody > comes to you and tells

you "Here is your Guru". You say, "No, thanks, I am not interested".

 

First of all, I am sorry you have somehow got the impression that people are

forcing Narayan Maharaja on you. Enthusiasm has a way of getting out of hand

and seeming fanatical, doesn't it?

 

On the other hand, one person's enthusiasm is another's aversion. You never

went on sankirtan and had people tell you, "Get out of my face!"? Some people

are so frustrated and set in their ways they can never be pacified. What can

we say, but "Okay, we're sorry, brother..."? "I'll be be sure to not approach

you again." Preaching involves some possibility of offense, no?

 

Defending you position is okay, but offending Vaisnavas is indefensible. So

lay off your speculation and sarcasm, that's what I'm saying.

 

> Nonbelievers, you got to stay in this hellish material world!

> (well, no some Srila das there anymore to pursue and condemn you,

> at least -- he'll be entertaining gopis in Goloka Vrndavana)

 

This is what I mean by your "cynical,witty" remarks. You can do that with

me, a relative equal, and that's no great harm. (The harm is the abusive

mentality we tend to cultivate.) But to apply such innunedo towards great

souls is decidedly dangerous. You don't have much shame, do you?

 

> Then he asks "But why?". Then you, well, tell to the "seller" why

> not. Then he jumps on you: "Offender!#! You'll be rotting in this

> world and taking a birth one after another!#!%!"

 

If you're not interested, then that should be the end of the conversation.

Bas.

 

But why are you keying in more far more lines than I do on this topic if I am

the so-called proselytizer? Think about it. It's called an "obsession." It's

your problem, not mine.

 

Introspect, brother. That's what I advised in the first place. But you don't

listen well, do you? But, boy, can you speak! You and Sthita have got an

opinion for EVERYTHING, it seems.

 

Anyway, enough of is enough of replying to these straw-man arguments. You

brought up the subject of Narayan Maharaja, I didn't. And you accuse me of

forcing him on you! Get real with yourself, Prabhu!

 

My bottom line is simply this: If you haven't met the person and had

SUFFICIENT personal experience with them to make a judicious decision, don't

give them a bad name and hang them.

 

End of chapter. (I forego the rest of my "equal" time in this discussion.)

 

Krsne matir astu.

 

Srila dasa